Would anyone be opposed to trading UP in the draft in front of Arizona to grab Gordon?

[xwalker]

I think that Gurley will be long gone and I think the only thing standing between us and Melvin Gordon might be Arizona at 23. Would you be opposed to trading up to get in front of Arizona to grab Gordon? Part of me thinks it might be worth it but part of me thinks the better value would be a RB in the second or maybe even third round.

Thoughts?

Sure, if Gordon is available in the 3rd I would trade in front of AZ to get him.

 

[Gaede]

Yeah I don't know about trading up for a rb. I'd rather trade down for one instead.

 

[Oh_Canada]

I would not like that move at all.. Rather get TJ Yeldon at 60

I'm with you. Yeldon is really growing on me, especially at 220lbs instead of 226 where he played his final year at Bama. He finishes runs well, good feet and a terrific blocker.

 

[egn22]

I would be opposed to trading up for any RB not named Todd Gurley.
I would take Tevin Coleman at 27 before trading up for Gordon.
Yeldon is not even on my draft board.

Agree w everything here but I'd include Gurley. Wouldn't trade up for any RB and I really hope the 1st pick is CB.

 

[endersdragon]

I wouldn't trade up for anyone. We don't need a short draft class.

How does trading a 1st and 3rd for a 1st and 4th like we did for Dez make out draft class any shorter?

 

[superonyx]

I wouldn't be against trading to move ahead of Arizona if Gordon grades out that much better than the next tier of backs. I just cant get a feel for any running back in the draft anymore. Too many guys I wanted that turned out to be turds in the Pros...(Richardson, Ingram, McFadden, ect)....
What I don't want us to do is to just sit and see who is left that just happens to "fall" to us. I don't believe that all of these backs are the same and that it doesn't matter which one we end up with.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

For a 5th... maybe.

If he's gone someone will slide....no trading up please...unless it's for Gurley or Dupree.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Not only am I against trading up, more importantly Stephen and Jerry agree with me.

 

[esloan]

The only reason I brought this up was because of Bob Sturm yesterday on the Ticket. He said that he thought moving up to get Gordon was something he might do and something the Cowboys would consider. Now, in a shallower RB draft class, I would agree 100% but this draft class is deep. I like Gordon but I think we could find more bang for the buck in the second and maybe even the third round.

If they did it, it would have to be a hell of a deal. Otherwise, I am actually leaning toward trading down unless someone like Malcom Brown is there. I am really worried that the BPA will be a CB and I do not want to spend another first rounder on a CB right now.

 

[Risen Star]

How does trading a 1st and 3rd for a 1st and 4th like we did for Dez make out draft class any shorter?

Because I was responding to the OP who said nothing about that hypothetical trade.

More than likely you're going to lose picks, so I'm not interested. Especially for Gordon.

 

[DFWJC]

With Jerry, that likely costs us 3rd rounder....again. Maybe we get back a 5th or 6th and maybe nothing.

No thanks.

This would be a good poll. Especially if it was specified the team we trade with and the price.

 

[jnday]

Hep. I'd hate it. I'd hate the trade up for Gurley, too.

Gurley is the only RB that I would consider trading up for. I think he has the potential to improve the rushing game and be an every down RB. I am not a fan of most of these RBs that fans sees as values in the second or third rounds. Most of them has questionable flaws that makes them a gamble to be a starting RB. I am not a fan of the RB by committee because this approach rarely creates a dominant running game. Make no mistake about it, this team depends on the rushing game too much for them to not go after the best RB possible.

 

[fishspill]

I'd do the trade because I like the player enough but I am starting to think we won't need to. I get the feeling there will be a draft day surprise and Coleman will get picked before Gordon allowing him to fall to us. Just a guess though.

 

[Hardline]

I would flip a coin if I had to pick between Gordon and Coleman. That's how close I see those two. Now I am all in for Gurley.

 

[Idgit]

Gurley is the only RB that I would consider trading up for. I think he has the potential to improve the rushing game and be an every down RB. I am not a fan of most of these RBs that fans sees as values in the second or third rounds. Most of them has questionable flaws that makes them a gamble to be a starting RB. I am not a fan of the RB by committee because this approach rarely creates a dominant running game. Make no mistake about it, this team depends on the rushing game too much for them to not go after the best RB possible.

I think we're probably not going to agree on the topic. I think we've benefitted from the play calling, and it's made it possible for Romo to be more selective in the passing game. But the real difference between last year and this one was that our defense just played at a higher level.

I've mentioned it before, but that 2013 team with the worst Cowboys defense ever lost 5 games by a total of 8 points that season. That's with the really bad defense. Give me continued improvement on that side of the ball--where we've still got a long, long row to hoe trying to get up into the top 10 leauge-wide--and I'll trust a committee of RBs, a rookie, and this OL to keep us productive offensively. We've been productive offensively for years, now.

But burning that first rounder on an RB in a draft this deep at the position? No thanks. Spending another pick on top of that? That'd be a devastatingly bad choice in my book. Three years from now, when we look at the RBs from this class, I think there's a good chance the most productive back isn't one of the top two guys. And I think there's a similar chance that the best performer in the group is going to be the guy who ends up in Dallas--whoever that back is--just because we've got the best situation and we're going to be committed to running the ball frequently.

 

[reddyuta]

I think we're probably not going to agree on the topic. I think we've benefitted from the play calling, and it's made it possible for Romo to be more selective in the passing game. But the real difference between last year and this one was that our defense just played at a higher level.

I've mentioned it before, but that 2013 team with the worst Cowboys defense ever lost 5 games by a total of 8 points that season. That's with the really bad defense. Give me continued improvement on that side of the ball--where we've still got a long, long row to hoe trying to get up into the top 10 leauge-wide--and I'll trust a committee of RBs, a rookie, and this OL to keep us productive offensively. We've been productive offensively for years, now.

But burning that first rounder on an RB in a draft this deep at the position? No thanks. Spending another pick on top of that? That'd be a devastatingly bad choice in my book. Three years from now, when we look at the RBs from this class, I think there's a good chance the most productive back isn't one of the top two guys. And I think there's a similar chance that the best performer in the group is going to be the guy who ends up in Dallas--whoever that back is--just because we've got the best situation and we're going to be committed to running the ball frequently.

how to like a post twice? there should be a option for that.

 

[jnday]

I think we're probably not going to agree on the topic. I think we've benefitted from the play calling, and it's made it possible for Romo to be more selective in the passing game. But the real difference between last year and this one was that our defense just played at a higher level.

I've mentioned it before, but that 2013 team with the worst Cowboys defense ever lost 5 games by a total of 8 points that season. That's with the really bad defense. Give me continued improvement on that side of the ball--where we've still got a long, long row to hoe trying to get up into the top 10 leauge-wide--and I'll trust a committee of RBs, a rookie, and this OL to keep us productive offensively. We've been productive offensively for years, now.

But burning that first rounder on an RB in a draft this deep at the position? No thanks. Spending another pick on top of that? That'd be a devastatingly bad choice in my book. Three years from now, when we look at the RBs from this class, I think there's a good chance the most productive back isn't one of the top two guys. And I think there's a similar chance that the best performer in the group is going to be the guy who ends up in Dallas--whoever that back is--just because we've got the best situation and we're going to be committed to running the ball frequently.

I knew we would disagree. I just see the running game as the biggest reason for the success last season. The defense didn't stay on the field so much due to the rushing game eating the clock up. Getting the best RB in the draft, doesn't mean the defense will not be improved. If the running game gets worse. I can guarantee the defense will get worse even if the entire draft is used on defensive players.

 

[ceerrece]

No, we need our first 4 picks...

 

[reddyuta]

let me all remind you that that Murray had an injury plagued college career and there were many question marks about that pick in the 3rd rd,we will have plenty of opportunities to pick a RB in the 3rd or lower who will do great behind our line.

 

[endersdragon]

Because I was responding to the OP who said nothing about that hypothetical trade.

More than likely you're going to lose picks, so I'm not interested. Especially for Gordon.

Didn't cost us picks when we got Dez and I don't think we are regretting that now